THE SECOND APPENDIX.

A. Articles for government and order in the church; exhibited to be admitted by authority: but not allowed.
B. Theodore Beza to secretary Cecyl; shewing the present ill condition of the protestants in France.
C. Literae illustriss. domini Marci Antonii Amulii cardinalis, ad illustrissimos legatos concilii Tridentini, super professionem fidei patriarchae Assyriorum orientallum.
D. The emperor Ferdinand’s letter to queen Elizabeth: to allow papists one church in every city.
E. The queen’s answer to the emperor.
F. A discourse upon a motion in parliament for the queen’s declaring of the succession after her: viz. That the limitation of the succession of the crown should be to the queen’s majesty’s service.
G. Lady Anne Boleyn to Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury; for his grant of the benefice of Sundridge to Mr. Barlow.
H. Cox bishop of Ely to Bullinger; upon occasion of his answer to the pope’s bull against the queen.
I. A libellous letter out of Scotland of certain English papists; against some counsellots of queen Elizabeth. Manuscripts made use of in these Annals.

ANNALS OF THE REFORMATION OF RELIGION, UNDER QUEEN ELIZABETH.

CHAPTER 34.

Veron the preacher. Spital sermons. The oath of supremacy tendered to bishop Boner; with the process thereupon. Velsius, an enthusiast. Disturbs the Dutch congregations. His challenge of the Dutch ministers. Proceedings with him. VERON, a learned Frenchman, one of the eminentest preachers at this time, and a writer, who had been a confessor also under queen Mary, now rector of St. Martin’s, Ludgate, and prebendary of St. Paul’s, died the 9th of April, and was buried the day after, being Easter-eve.

Those that preached the celebrated Spital sermons this year were as followeth:

April the 12th, Easter Monday, preached Horn, bishop of Winton. At this sermon was declared the condition of the poor French protestants, that were fled into England for the persecution, among whom were many women and children: which raised such a compassion in the auditors, that there was collected for them 45l.

April the l3th, Easter Tuesday, Mr. Cole, rector of High Ongar in Essex, and archdeacon of Essex, preached.

April the 14th, Easter Wednesday, the dean of St. Paul’s preached. And, April the 18th, being Low Sunday, preached Bradborn, [Bradbridg, I suppose, it should be.] He declared the three sermons preached the week before at the Spital, according to custom. This Bradbridg was now, or not long after, the dean of Salisbury, and afterwards bishop of Exon, Ally being dead.

Upon the act aforementioned, empowering the bishops to tender the oath of supremacy to the ecclesiastics under their jurisdiction, Horn, bishop of Winton, intended to tender it to Boner, late bishop of London, now lying in the Marshal sea in Southwark, a place within his diocese. He was therefore brought before the bishop, or certain ecclesiastical officers of the said bishop, who required him to take the said oath. But Boner refused both the oath as unlawful, and the bishop himself, as not having power to administer it to him, being none of his diocesan, and indeed no diocesan at all, that is, no lawful bishop. Upon which a famous suit was commenced; at which an argument was learnedly held by great lawyers, whether the queen’s bishops were legal bishops, as other histories do relate.

A certificate of Boner’s refusal to take the oath was brought into the King’s Bench by the bishop of Winton’s chancellor; whereupon by the law he was to be indicted of a premunire. But Boner made several exceptions to the certificate, (which occasioned a suit in Michaelmas term, anno 6 & Eliz.) as that he was only styled therein doctor of laws, and in sacred orders, but neither clerk nor bishop. But that exception was not allowed in the court. Further, that the certificate was said to be carried into the court such a day and year by A. B. chancellor of the said bishop, but saith not, by the command of the bishop. But neither was that allowed. Thirdly, that he was indicted upon this certificate in the county of Middlesex by the common jury, and it ran, to inquire in the King’s Bench for the county of Middlesex. To which Boner pleaded, Not guilty; for he was in the county of Surrey. Whereupon a question was raised, by what county he should be tried, whether by a jury of Middlesex, or by a jury of Surrey, where the offence was committed. And it was resolved, that the inquiry should be by men of the county of Surrey, and of the neighbourhood of Southwark. For the indictment, mentioned in that act of 5 Eliz. extended to the indictment only, and leaves the trial to the common law, which appoints it to be where the offence is committed, as the lord Coke explained it. Fourthly, he excepted again, that Horn was not bishop of Winton, when he tendered him his oath, that is, not allowing him to be a bishop. Upon this there was much debate among the judges, in the lord chief justice Catlyn’s chamber, if Boner could give in evidence upon this issue, namely, that he was not guilty, because the bishop of Winton was not bishop in the time of his tendering the oath. And (as Dyer reports) it was resolved by all, that if the truth and matter be such in fact, Boner would come off. And therefore it was left to the jury to try it.

But after much dispute, to take away all doubt for the future, the present bishops were established by a law made in the eighth year of the queen, that is, in the year of our Lord 1565.

But to return to Boner, and to the beginning of this contention. When he was carried back from the bishop of Winton to the Marshalsea, these passages happened between him and the gazing people, who hated him mortally for his late cruelties, and were met in great multitudes to see him pass. One said to him, “The Lord confound thee, or else turn thy heart.”

To whom he answered, “The Lord send thee to keep thy breath to cool thy porridge.” To another saying, “The Lord overthrow thee,” he said, “The Lord make thee as wise as a woodcock.” Finally, a woman, wife to one Games, sometimes schoolmaster of the choristers in Magdalen college, kneeled down, and said “The Lord save thy life, bishop. I trust to see thee bishop of London again.” To whom he said, “God a mercy, good wife.”

And so passed to his lodging, where he had talk with a minister of the word of God about the supremacy. The bishop being by him both moved by reason and exhorted by doctrine to yield, gave neither ear nor credit, but answered him tauntingly, “By God, you are well learned.” To whom the minister said, “Where learned you, Mr. Bonet, to swear?” “I pray you,” said he, “did not Christ swear, Amen, amen, dico vobis?” “Why, that is well,” said the minister, “that you have some scripture for blasphemy, although you have none for popery.” With that he flung from him out of his chamber into the garden, desiring Mr. Keeper to command him out of the house, that so withstood him.

Upon the foresaid refusal of Boner, and upon his second declining to take the oath, according as the act directed, the bishop of Winchester certified him into the King’s Bench, as was said before. But Boner, against all the proceedings of the bishop, laid in his objections and exceptions in that and other courts. The rude draught whereof, wrote with his own hand, was as followeth verbatim. Objections layed in by Edmond Boner, clerck, against the processe, and all the doyngs, made eyther before Dr. Robert Horne, namyng hymself bishop of Winchester, and against the unlawful certificate given in by the same, in the Queen’s Bench; eyther before any other in the said Queen’s Bench, or elsewhere within this realm, concernyng the premisse, attempted [against] the said Edmond, by vertue of the surmysed statutes of a°. 1°. regni Elizabeth, or ao. 5o. of the same.

First , The said Edmond saith, protesting alway, that he intendeth nothing to say, attempt, or do against the queen’s most excellent majesty of this realm, in any wise by writing or otherwise, or her prerogatif, laws, statutes, or liberties, otherwise than may stand by good law, reason, and conscience, that he the said Edmond hath not ronne into any penalty, comprised in any of the said two statutes of anno primo et anno quinto of the said queen.

For that especially, both the said two statutes of anno primo et anno quinto of the said queen be not of strength, force, or power, to condempn the said Edmond; both for that the same statutes ought to have had the consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and also the consent of the commons in that parliament assembled: and also, for that the said Edmond was not convented or called herein before a lawful bishop, or competent judge, such as might require any such oath enjoined in eyther of the said statutes; neyther the said Edmond in law or conscience bound in any wise to give the said oath, which hath not his due companions, judicium, justitiam, et veritatem: nor could be given by the said Edmond, but by the death and loss of his own soul, and the danger and losse of divers other mens souls, of whom he hath care and charge of.

Item , That the said Mr. Robert Horne, not being lawful bishop of Winchester, but an usurper, intruder, and unlawful possessioner thereof; as well for that according to the laws of the Catholic church, and the statutes and ordinances of this realm, the said Mr. Robert Horne was not elected, consecrated, or provided, as also according to the canons of the Catholic church he, the said Mr. Robert Horne, came not to the same dignity, or was eligible to the same; but as a person infamed, unworthy, and utterly unmeet for the same, did take upon him the said office, most worthy to be repelled from the same.

Item , That the said Mr. Robert Horne, conspiring with other schismatical bishops of this realm, did by sundry and unlawful means go about at sundry times to put the said Edmond both in extreme and certain danger of his life, and also of loosing of all his lyving and goods.

Item , That the said Mr. Robert Horne, forgetting his own souls helth, and following the sensualitie of his own mynde, of late did make an unlawful, untrew, and false certiffcate, into the quenes majesties bench, surmysing the said Edmond peremptorily and obstinately to have refused to give the said oath, required in the said statute of anno primo et anno quinto. Wheras he the said Edmond so did not; but alledged, that he was not bound to give the said oath, for reasonable causes, then and above also expressed.

Other exceptions, which the aforesaid Boner made against the bishop of Winchester’s proceedings with him, in the court where he was indicted, were these:

The summons of the said defendent concerning his appearance was not good, nor agreeable to the laws and statutes of this realm.

Item , The inditement is not good and right, because that the matter, whereupon the inditement is grounded, will not bear the inditement: which maketh a great fault to be in the defendent refusing the oath. Which the said defendent in his conscience and lerning thinketh he ought not to give: forasmuch as he cannot give it without committing of deadly sin.

Item , Concerning the special oath, the defendent saith, that the said oath, like as all other oaths, ought to have three companions, appointed in scripture to be veritas, judicium, et justitia. And seeing that this oath hath not these three companions, the defendent pleadeth that he ought not to ronne into any penalty at all.

Item , That this oath hath not the said three companions, it appeareth manifestly, for that the said defendent, if he should give it, he should do first against veritie and commit falsity. And also should do against judgment; whereby is here to understand discretion. And also he should not observe justice, which giveth to God and to every thing their due right. In consideration whereof, and that the quenes majestic (whom almighty God long preserve) myndeth not her subjects to ronne into perjury, but to keep to their conscience and bounden duty; this defendent firmly believeth, that her said majesty being truly informed of the truth herein, which he is able to justify, will not be in any wise offended.

Item , The statute of anno quinto saith, that the oath shall be promoted in open place, where there shall be a convenient assembly of people to witness the same. And in the inditement there is no mention made of the oath offered before any assembly of people.

Item , That Dr. Horne is no lawful bishop, neyther concerning the tendering of the said oath, nor other things foresaid, nor exercise of other ecclesiastical office; for many causes, and especially for that he the said Dr. Horne was not lawfully consecrated, according to the laws and statutes of this realm: especially the statute of 25 of Henry VIII. cap. 20; where in effect is required, that he that is to be consecrated must, among other things, have one archbishop and two bishops, or else four bishops, at the consecration. Which the said Dr. Horne had not.

Item , That the said Dr. Horne, by reason of the premisses, and that he hath not duly certified according to the statute of anno quinto: and over that, the said Dr. Horne hath without warrant, commission, or authority, called the said defendent out of the quenes majesties prison of the Marshalsea in Southwark, putting the said defendent in manifest and notorious danger of his life many ways, and especially by reason of the naughty and unruly multitude, which the said Dr. Horne and his complices, purposely of malice, had caused then and there in the streets riotously to be assembled, and by them and their bedle to be thereof advertised; and then and there to cry out wonder, and make exclamation against the said defendent, and them dangerously to use and advertise against all good order, and law, and reason: and moreover, for that the said Dr. Horne, without warrant, commission, or authority, did return the said defendent again in the Marshalsea foresaid, and put the said defendent in danger of his life, and to great costs and losses: therefore the said defendent most humbly beseecheth this honourable court, first for the quenes majesties honour and advantage, the said Dr. Horne to be called to answer before your honours for his wilful, heady, and lewd enterprize; and to graunt to the said defendent liberty and licence to sue him and his complices, for the manifest outrages, injuries, [and dammages,] attempted and done against the said defendent.

A part of another of Boner’s declarations in his own behalf ran thus: Item, That where there was much adoe to frame the act, Doctor Horne sometime inditing it, the scribe writing it; and by and by smiting it out by his commandment, I the said Edmond told unto them, saying, “If you cannot make your act your selves, let me help you. And it shall do weh in my opinion if in the first place [you write] your own sayings and doings, and then write mine.” Which thing with much adoe being agreed upon, and the writing left with the scribe, which doth declare all the whole matter, I departed thence, and afterwards divers times did send to William Bydell, the scribe, to have a true copy thereof; and in no wise could get it.

Item , That by the said premisses it cloth appear, that I the said Edmond made no such precise, peremptory, or obstinate refusal, as is certified in this behalf. And therefore neither the certificate brought herein, nor the indictment proceeding thereupon, are to be credenced, nor to be taken for good and lawful, but clerely to be rejected and cast away. And the said Dr. Horne, for his unlawful doings herein, to be duely punished, and from the dignitie of the bishopric of Winchester, as an intruder, usurper, and unlawful possessioner, to be excluded and rejected; especially, being a notorious lecher, advouterer, schismatike, and heretike, and in no wise a lawful bishop, especially to exact any such oath, or to make such certificate, as is before mentioned.

All this scandal, trouble, and disturbance had this good bishop, in venturing to be so hardy as to meddle with such a man as Boner was.

Another troubler of the peace of the church, though of a quite different strain from the former, this year also arose, and appeared in London, namely, one Justus Velsius, a foreigner of the Hague. He was a man of learning, but a great enthusiast, pretending much to the Spirit, and to great illuminations, a foreteller of God’s wrath at hand, and a discoverer of errors and heresies. This man, being one Thursday in March at a prophecy, (as it was called,) in the Dutch church in London, where Nicolas, one of the ministers, preached upon the doctrine of regeneration, stood up, and contradicted him, as delivering false doctrine, nay, many gross errors and heresies concerning this point of religion; and in fine, made a challenge to the said Nicolas, and Peter De Loene, the other Dutch minister, to dispute on this argument with them the Thursday ensuing. And the account of this enterprise of his he thought fit to write to the secretary; telling him, “That he was present, and heard the said Nicolas discoursing concerning the regeneration of man, as a blind man of colours, introducing he knew not what monsters of heresies, and withdrawing from the people the true doctrine of regeneration, and bringing in certain false doctrines in the room of it, surpassing the absurdities of all heresies. Yet he keeping a temper, followed the counsel of Dionysius Areopagita, and thought not fit to contend against him with manifold gainsayings, which would have been a long business, and of no great use; but in simple words he had plainly laid down the very truth concerning regeneration, confirmed by scripture. But that they with much bitterness recompensed his kindness and goodwill, and with jeers and reproaches, the property of such men to do: insomuch that all good and moderate men, even of their own flock, grieved and complained of it. That he therefore, perceiving by the Spirit of God, that now the time was come, wherein Christ would work by him the salvation of men, and demolish the enemies power, he had challenged these ministers, these spots and blemishes, sporting in their own errors, to the said contest. And this challenge he advised the secretary to give the queen notice of; that she might send whom she would of her seevants, who might not only be present, and witnesses, at this contest, but also endeavour that all things (as God willed and desired) might be done orderly, and without all tumult: and that she would not endeavour to hinder it by any means, unless she, taking up arms against the invincible God and Christ, had a mind suddenly to perish with those figliters against God and figliters against Christ.” This was written in Latin, March the 20th, 1563.

The challenge abovesaid he soon drew up in a form, and published it abroad, and enclosed it in his former letter. “Since according to Paul in these our last days, there be many men (alas!) who, being blinded with the love of themselves, attribute much to themselves, being arrogant, proud, evil speakers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, wicked, wanting the affection of charity, truce-breakers, slanderers, &c. whom Paul biddeth to avoid; and of this number are Peter de Loene and Nicolas, who give out themselves for the ministers of the church of the German congregation in London; who as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do they resist the truth, denying by the spirit of Antichrist the force of the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh, who therefore appeared, that he might demolish the works of the Devil; that is, that adulterous stamp and coin, to wit, original sin, which he [the Devil] impressed upon men, and from man himself [Christ in the flesh] he might receive the true coin of God, impressing upon him the image of the new and heavenly man. “I, by the Spirit of God, whom to resist is an horrible thing, for the asserting of the glory of Jesus Christ our Saviour, (which those false apostles, deceitful workers, in whom Satan transfigureth himself into an angel of light, endeavour to take away from him,) am come hither, that I may publicly resist these very persons in the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we make known to every one, because the kingdom of God doth not consist in word but in power, that we challenge those same Peter de Loene and Nicolas, slanderers of the truth of Christ and God, the next Thursday, the 25th of March, not to an empty strife of words, but to the demonstration of the Spirit and power. That so as I assert, either their false and devilish doctrine, or rather our true and divine doctrine, be confirmed by signs, which the eternal truth of God, which cannot lie, hath promised, shall follow those that truly believe. “And because they now of a long time, according to their lusts, have urged much false doctrine, persecuting Christ in his members, there are many (for not these two alone, but others also with them, defend this false doctrine,) whom they may assume their alders, and so as the false prophets of Baal, do multiply and heap up to themselves, I being alone, but joined to Christ, it is very agreeable to reason, and equal, that they first join themselves to this touchstone, and declare of what sort they are; afterwards, when they shall be found reprobate silver, and cast away by the Lord, then the grace of God shall be revealed, what kind of treasure we carry about in this earthen vessel, that it may be the abundance of the power of God, and be ascribed to him, and not to us; to whom all glory and honour is due for ever and ever. Amen.”

By this challenge it seems, that which gave this Velsius offence was the Dutch ministers’ assertion of original sin, utterly denied by the sect of Dutch anabaptists, of which sort this man I suppose was. And it is remarkable, so heated was the fancy of this sectary, that in this challenge he seemed to promise some signs and miracles to accompany his disputation, for the confirming of the pretended truth he should defend against these Dutch ministers.

I will relate another exploit of this conceited man. It was but a few days before this happened, that, as though it were by some inspiration, he required the abovesaid De Loene to put his whole congregation upon entering into a second covenant with God, (baptism, their first, being broken,) and enjoining him to propose it to them accordingly for their salvation. But the said De Loene not complying with this proposal, Velsius took upon him, as one having some extraordinary authority from God, as St. Paul had, to anathematize him in that apostle’s words.

The renewing and restauration of the dissolved covenant, as Velsius entitled it, to be propounded to the congregation, ran in these words: “Because in the initiation of baptism we stuck not to the abrenunciations and sponsions made for us, but by intolerable breach of faith, turning away from Christ, and the life of God, as children of disobedience, we fell off wholly from them, again as dogs returning to their own vomit, and swine washed to their wallowing in the mire, being conformed to our former lusts in ignorance, doing the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, walking, as other nations which know not God, in the vanity of the mind, loving the world, and the things of the world, the lust of the flesh, the last of the eyes, and the pride of life, and giving heed to spirits, impostors, and doctrines of devils;which fill the soul with knowledge that puffeth up, envy and contention, and putting away a good conscience; have made shipwrack concerning faith, wandering from the simplicity which is in Christ: therefore, with the lost son, coming to ourselves, desiring to bring forth fruit worthy of true repentance, we do this day renounce wholly the Devil, and all his suggestions, the world with all its pomps; and also ourselves, and the vanity of our minds, and our carnal cogitations and lusts, with a firm purpose of never returning to them again. To Christ also and to God we give our names, to do henceforth according to his sayings, precepts, and laws, to be put into our minds, and to be written upon our hearts by the goodness and grace of him, and the communication and leading of the Holy Ghost, all our whole life according to our strength. To the eternal Father we religously promise and vow these things, from a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith unfeigned; by this aid and help, without which we can do nothing ourselves, as of ourselves. This we know, acknowledge, and confess, imploring that thou wouldest vouchsafe in us these very things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, by that holy and sanctifying Spirit. Amen.”

The letter he wrote to the Dutch minister aforesaid, to propose this covenant to his congregation, may deserve also to be taken notice of, which was as follows: “My friend, whom I love with a pure heart in Christ Jesus, and whose salvation I do not less desire to further than mine own. How long at last will you so miserably deceive yourself and all others, and draw them with yourself into eternal perdition? For who is not ready again to renew and enter into this covenant with God and Christ, and firmly to adhere to it, whence (as every one ought at this day to acknowledge) he is fallen? Ready, I say, to enter into this covenant after the manner as it is here propounded from the holy scriptures; without which he is neither a Christian, nor can at any time ever be. And for that cause, convert yourselves; be converted, I say, before it be too late, from your evil ways, and yield your ears to truth, which Christ by his unspeakable mercy hath sealed in us, and is ready to confirm the same by signs (set down in the last chapter of Mark) of those that truly believe. To which I, because the righteousness of God consisteth not in word but in power, challenge all the adversaries of truth, to the praise and glory of the omnipotent God, and the salvation of all men. Amen.”

But De Loene thought not good to follow this conceit of Velsius, and delayed the offering of this new covenant of his drawing up, to his flock: whereupon he exerted his pretended plenary power, and published a writing, solemnly denouncing his anathema against the said preacher in these words: “To the hand of him to whomsoever this writing shall come.

Since he suppresseth it,” [i.e. the renewing of the dissolved covenant,] “and proposeth it not presently, and at this very day, to the whole congregation of Lower Germany; let the indignation of God be upon him; and in the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be delivered to Satan, to the destruction of his flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Velsius also about this time wrote a letter to a French ambassador then in London, foretelling therein what terrible judgments (which he said were already begun, i.e. by war and plague) God was bringing upon them for their obstinacy: and bade him know for certain, that God had revealed to him, by his Spirit, that they were inwardly possessed by Satan; because (as it seems) he had not listened unto some propositions that he had made to him and his nation about religion.

He wrote also to queen Elizabeth, and dealt as freely, in a long letter, with her, telling her, that he had writ to her for her own safety, and the safety of her kingdom: and that the Spirit of Christ compelled him to write, and to propose before her and the nobles of the kingdom, a norma recti judicii, i.e. a rule of right judgment; which he sent to her, to be embraced and professed by all her people. It was a paper of his own drawing up, consisting of several articles of doctrine, by way. of question and answer, wherein were some very odd notions: as, that “a Christian is made by participation and grace that which Christ was of himself and by nature, namely, first, God in man, and then Man-God.”

In the year 1556 he held a dispute at Frankfort with one Horne, who appeared in behalf of Calvin’s doctrine for absolute predestination, and against free-will: and him he called ambitionis et kenodoxi>av vilissimum mancipium, i.e. a most vile slave of ambition and vainglory. He asserted, that he that was born again might not sin, and in effect could not sin, that is, if he remained in the grace of regeneration.

To conclude concerning this man: he was brought before the ecclesiastical commissioners; and at length two of them, viz. the bishop of London and the bishop of Winchester, forbade him the kingdom; and that by the queen’s authority. This he took notice of in the end of his letter to the queen: but that it should be by her authority, he said, he could not be induced to believe; having been by them commanded to depart hence for no other cause than for the true confession, which the queen had heard, and for his endeavour of setting on foot a more pure life, by the leading of the Spirit of God. And that therefore he could not obey them, since God himself had confirmed his vocation here by an open miracle of Cosmus: who was a madman, and lately put into Bethlem: which madness Velsius fancied he had inflicted on him as a judgment; saying, he was possessed by the Devil.

CHAPTER 35.

The bishop of Worcester’s vindication of himself against Sir John Bourne before the privy council. Bourne’s imprisonment and submission.

DR. Edwin Sandys, who deserved well of religion, and suffered for it, now bishop of Worcester, had a great enemy in that city, namely, sir John Bourne, knight, the late queen Mary’s principal secretary of state. He was high steward of that church of Worcester, and a beneficiary thereof: and, however an enemy he was to the religion reformed, yet he resorted to his parish church for the most part daily, (as he asserted himself to the privy council,) ever since Sandys’ coming to the diocese, and yet was reported to have mass said at his house: and he came now and then to the bishop’s table, who treated him civilly. But Bourne, notwithstanding, had an angry stomach against the bishop, which at length appeared more openly; when upon some pretended ill treatment of him from the bishop and his folks, he wrote letters to the privy council, complaining of him by way of information: which the bishop by word of mouth before the council, Bourne himself being present, answered so clearly and satisfactorily, that his accusations appeared to be unjust, false, and scandalous. He wrote also a very rude letter to the bishop, and received a reprimand from the council for the same.

But Bourne ceased not; but again sent to the council a writing, which he called a declaration of the matters wherein the bishop of Worcester had vindicated himself before the council. In this declaration, consisting in thirteen articles, he laboured to reply upon what the bishop had said. It was writ superciliously and spitefully, and slanderously upon that grave father’s assertions, sermons, and person. “As, that he had thought himself ill entreated by his lordship, the bishop, and his folks; and thereby sore provoked he wrote that letter to the bishop, [which their honours had seen,] for which he had received correction and rebuke from them. That his lordship said, that being in prison in the Tower for religion, he understood that he [sir J. Bourne] was his enemy so much, that where queen Mary was inclined to pardon and release him of his fault, he fell on his knees before her, beseeching her grace to stay, saying, he was the greatest heretic in Cambridge, whereby he remained in great danger of his life, till God delivered him” To this sir John Bourne said, “That he was not sent to the Tower, (as the bishop had said,) but to the Marshalsea, and remained there, not for religion, but for treason. That in his sermon which he made at Cambridge, when the duke of Northumberland came down thither upon the lady Jane’s business, being neither commanded by the nobility or the university, and without the advice of the learned men there, he touched the births of queen Elizabeth, and her late noble sister, and pronounced thereof that which became him not. That he never knew queen Mary intended his pardon: if she did, he never laboured the contrary. That corrupt labour was made for his deliverance under queen Mary, to which he [Bourne, then secretary] assented not; and when he was discharged he knew not, but sure he was there was no plain order for it; and that he had heard, he conveyed himself away by breaking prison with the aid of sir Thomas Holcroft or his man.

That customably in the bishop’s talk he termed queen Mary, plain Mary, or Mary Marral, Bloody Mary, and Drunken Mary; and that, as a token of her clemency, she was drunk the same night she granted his pardon. That out of displeasure to Bourne, he removed two servants from his service (one put to him by one of the honourable board, and the other had served the lady Chandois) for no quarrel, but that one had served him, and the other he had praised, as being of his acquaintance: and had received two more into his service, whom he [Bourne] had removed from him. That the bishop had charged him to have mass commonly said in his house; which he denied he had: and that he called priests’ wives, whores: and that when he was at the bishop’s table, he seemed to be displeased with him for drinking to his wife, (whom Bourne gave this character of, that she was fair, wellnurtured, sober, and demure, so far as he had seen,) and for calling her lady: whereat (said Bourne) he chafed, and said he mocked both him and her.

Bourne added, that he frequented his parish church for the more part daily ever since the bishop’s coming to his diocese: and verily believed he had been there more often for the quarter than his lordship in his cathedral church, or in any other in one year, of any intent to pray. That in a sermon of the bishop’s about matrimony and the virgin state, he had said, that there was no imparity, but the vow and dignity of both was equal, and equally seemed in the sight of God. That indeed he praised both estates well. That he affirmed all contracts and bargains of matrimony to be damnable, and of no validity, made privately and without consent of parents; alleging Evaristus for that purpose. That concerning virginity and the single life, he handled the case so finely, that to his thinking, if he should have believed him, he could not find three good virgins since Christ’s time. And that so he left the matter with an exhortation to all to marry, marry. Further, that he said in that sermon, that singleliving men, that is to say, unmarried, and especially unmarried priests, lived naught. And that there in the city were lately presented five or six unmarried priests, that kept five or six whores apiece; though there were not above four unmarried priests in the city in all. That not one of them had purged himself of that crime whereof he was detected, nor had fulfilled any public penance, or private, as he guessed. And he had learned the law to be, that the ordinary should keep the detection secret till the party were called to answer; nor was the party openly in the pulpit to be traduced, till the visitor should call him to answer, were he lay or spiritual person. “Then Bourne spake of the church of Worcester, whereof he was high steward and a beneficiary: and then of the covetousness of those spiritual persons belonging to it that were married; and how they did dispense the lands and goods of holy church to them committed where he dwelt. That in the bishop’s visitation he had commanded the altar-stone in sir J. B’s parish church to be pulled down and defaced. And whereas the bishop had said, sir J. B. had commanded the contrary, and that it should not be broken nor defaced, but reserved; and in contempt of him caused it to be borne out of the church, and carried home to his house; sir John said, it was untrue, for the altar was taken down, as he said, a year before he came to the church, and was reserved and laid aside toward the paving of one isle of the said church; and bestowed in the paving thereof accordingly, and never brought to his house, nor carried out of the church. “Bourne had also charged the bishop with phrensy: and that he heard this first by report of the duke of Northumberland, he being present at his examination in the Tower. Which duke, being then charged that he should cause the said bishop [then Dr. Sandys] to make that sermon at Cambridge, for which he was committed to the Marshalsea, had said for answer, that he was so much offended with the said sermon, that no one thing offended him more: and further said, he was once minded to have punished him for example, till for excuse, he learned, that he was once out of his wits, and beside himself for love, or some such other matter: which his infirmity, Bourne added, he had heard from others.”

Of these and many other particulars did Bourne’s said declaration consist.

To this calumniatory writing the bishop was not silent; nor would his own care of his reputation in the church suffer him, but answered this declaration in two or three sheets of paper, offered to the council. To which answer was added the blazon of his coat of arms, signed by Will.

Harvey Clarenceux; wherein it appeared he was sprung of an ancient genteel family in St. Bees in Cumberland, against the slander of the said Sir John Bourne, that he was no gentleman.

Now because the reputation of so eminent a father in our church, and of whom so much use was made in reforming of corrupt religion, and settling the church of England in the beginning of queen Elizabeth’s reign, might be cleared from the calumnies of his enemies; I shall here set down this bishop’s vindication of himself against this gentleman, which the said bishop sent to the privy council, and his letter with it. His letter ran to this tenor: “Where, at such time as sir John Bourne and I were before your honours, there was declared unto me by your honours the substance of an information, which the said sir John had made to your honours against me; whereunto I prayed leave that I might presently answer: and having licence of your honours, briefly and truly answered the most part thereof accordingly. And thereupon your honours did order, that the said sir John should article in writing all such matters of his information as he had to charge me with; and that I afterward should in writing answer the same; and further object against him: it now plainly appeareth by his book of articles, that the said sir John doth not use his articles by way of information according to the said order, but by way of answer unto that which I spake before your honours. And because he taketh upon him to report that in writing which I uttered by mouth, and so to answer: and in his said report doth far alter the tale which I told; and so hath answered in many places that which by me was never objected but by himself: I am constrained, first, briefly to iterate my said tale uttered before your honours, to the intent to put your honours in remembrance of the truth thereof; and to shew you likewise how far the said sir John mistaketh and misreporteth the same. And because his articles, which he useth by name of an answer to me, are rather in themselves a new accusation, I will truly answer to the substance of the same: and where he doth charge me and mine in his said articles with many and sundry great and heinous crimes, misbehaviours, and defaults; wherein, if he should say trouthe, I were far unmeet the office and rome wherein the queen’s majesty hath placed me; so if his sayings shall appear to be vain, and not true, (as they be most untrue,) and many of them devised by himself, and of his malice, not only borne towards me, but also towards all that preach the doctrine of the gospel, as I do: then are they such an heavy burden of slander wrongfully laid upon me, so much to the discredit of me unto your honours, the defacing of my preaching, and hinderance of the execution of my office; that I shall most humbly beseech your honours, that he may at the least openly deny them with the same tongue, or by like writing, as he hath most slanderously, maliciously, and untruly uttered them.”

Then followed the bishop’s paper, viz. The repetition of my answer made before your honours in such matters, as sir John Bourne had laid to my charge before the same. “I most humbly thank your honours, that it will please you to give me leave to answer for myself. I being prisoner in the Tower, suit was made to queen Mary and the privy council for my enlargement: and it was reported unto me, the bill of my delivery was allowed by the privy council, and sent up in the docket to be assigned by the queen. When it came thereunto, sir John Bourne hindered that bill, by reporting what my father was; what my brother was; and how that I was the greatest heretic in Cambridge, and a corrupter of the university. And so I was stayed until it pleased God to deliver me, as may now appear. This displeasure long since I had east out of my mind, and freely forgiven; whereof God will bear me witness. “At my coming to Worcester, sir John Bourne resorted unto me twice or thrice, whom I entertained so friendly as I could; minding that way to win his favour, and conform his opinion in religion.

And although I was informed by divers honest men of the city, that he had mass in his house, which his fool could openly report, and was otherways diversely bruited and suspected; and moreover in reasoning with me, and in defending transubstantiation, reproving Peter Martyr’s book, he protested he would never be of my religion. And where I directed forth process for a widow, whom his brother Thomas Bourne, having wife and children of his own, had gotten with child, being a woman before in honest name, and having a good living, sir John Bourne hindered the sending forth the said process; shewing my register that he would take upon him to satisfy me in that behalf, as my register did and will testify. And whereas I commanded an altarstone in his church to be broken according to the queen’s majesty’s injunctions; and resorting thither to preach, I asked the churchwardens whether they had so done or no. They answered, that sir John’s man had carried it away into his house; and they could not have it, nor break it. Also, in a sermon that I made at a marriage, shewing how fit and necessary it was that children should not contract without the consent of their parents, bringing the saying of Evaristus, a bishop of Rome, Matrimonia tunc sunt, cum expetuntur a parentibus; alioqui non matrimonia, sed stupra sunt; i.e. Marriage is that which is sought by parents; otherwise it is not marriage, but whoredom. This doctrine sir John depraved; labouring thereby to discredit my preaching. “Besides, I sending for divers of his parish, to detect faults and disorders in my visitation, he detained them back, and would not suffer to come. All these displeasures and inconveniences I suffered, lest I should seem to revenge old displeasure, and to work upon affection. “But the cause of his chief grief towards me rose upon this occasion. Two ministers’ wives, who be both honest and sober, (the one a gentlewoman,) were going over Severn in their own boat. My lady Bourn, her eldest son, and divers servants, entered into the boat. Sir John Bourne’s eldest son, blaspheming and swearing, said, Now you are among papists. As for you, Mrs.

Avyce, you are a shrew. And, Mrs. Wilson, your husband is a good fellow: ye can want no help; if ye do, send for me. It is no mervail if sir John Bourne’s son use such talk; for he himself calleth ministers’ wives whores. One of the serving men rushed on Mrs. Avyce’s shoulders with his buckler, and tear her coat almost a foot long, and pierced unto the skin, and hurt her; and put them both in great fear. Upon this occasion a servant of mine, being cousin to Mrs.

Wilson, as he reported, was offended, and meeting with one Jones, sir John Bournds servant asked him, Is not thy name Jones? Yea, said he, what wouldest thou with that? Marry, thou art a knave, and hast abused a gentlewoman, a friend of mine. Whereupon they drew their weapons, and my man smote the sword out of his hand at the first blow. After, bade him take it up again, saying, I might kill thee if I would: but fight, if thou darest. My brother, being my receiver, going on hunting with others, came and ended the fray.

This servant is called Kilkow, although supposed to be a coward: for his master going in the streets of Worcester, a serving man met him, and forgat to put off his cap: whereupon sir John Bourne called him knave: and this his man, (as should appear and was reported,) at his commandment, went and found the serving man in a shop, and cometh behind him and smiteth him, that he was in great danger of death hereby. Anthony Bourne, son and heir of sir John Bourne, offended herewithal, sent his sword to the cutlers, to make it sharp; and came soon after himself, with three or four men, near unto my palace gates, and called, Where be the bishops boys?

Tell them that Anthony Bourne is come. Hereupon my men went forth, and they buckled together with their weapons, and had made a fray upon my men, if the bailiff had not parted them, I being in my consistory all the while. At the length making an end of matters, and repairing home into my house, having but one man left with me, coming into my palace, my porter seemed to be troubled: and I asked what the matter was? Said he, Anthony Bourne and divers of his father’s servants called out your men to fight with them.

Whereupon I hasted to the street, where I found them newly set asunder. I went with the bailiffs into the town-house, where the parties were also called. I required the bailifts, that if any of my men had offended, to punish them most extremely, to the example of all others: and when they had done, I would expel them my house. But as for young Mr. Bourne, use your discretion. And so I departed, leaving the examination to the bailifts. And of any quarrel between my men and sir John Bourne’s men before that, of my honesty I never knew nor heard. And of all this I minded never to have complained. “Within two days after, I having occasion rode to Ludlow, to my lord president, [sir Henry Sidney.] And he asked of Worcester matters. I told him of the disorder that was like to have been at Worcester. Whereupon he wrote to the bailiffs to examine the matter truly, and to send unto him the examination. Which they did.

Anthony Bourne, with some others, was sent for by letters: and he, after sharp rebuke, was bound to the peace against me and all my folks. Whereupon it may appear where the fault was. All this notwithstanding, when I perceived that sir John Bourne a little before Christmas came into the country, with my lady his wife, and minded not to keep house, I required my chancellor, who is his friend, to tell sir John, that if he and my lady his wife would keep Christmas with me, the